Last week we asked how Iran's drive toward nuclear weapons could be deterred and its external support for terror groups contained. This week we want to focus on Iran's internal politics.
For two weeks, we watched Iranians take to the street, facing guns and clubs with placards and chants to protest the June 12 presidential vote that the ruling Guardian Council declared the "healthiest" vote since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Neither the nominal presidential victor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nor his leading opponent, Mir Hussein Mousavi, seem to have an individual political base to draw upon, but Iran-watchers say that a bona fide political struggle does indeed appear to be under way within Iran's immensely confusing establishment. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei endorsed Ahmadinejad's victory, and militia loyal to the supreme leader ruthlessly crushed street protests. There are signs of fissures among the clerics, however, and rumors that Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the chairman of the Assembly of Experts that can, in theory, depose or limit Khamenei's powers, is working quietly behind the scenes to limit the hard-liners.
What are the important political forces at work within Iran? What drove people to risk their lives in the street, and what might become of those forces now? Are they strong enough to bring about short-term change, or is this going to be a long slog toward a more moderate regime?
-- Corine Hegland, NationalJournal.com
8 responses: Michael Brenner, Joseph J. Collins, Dov S. Zakheim, Steven Metz, Ron Marks, Wayne White, Daniel Byman, Hillary Mann Leverett
Recent events in North Korea and Iran have highlighted once again the challenge these two regimes pose to regional stability and to U.S. interests more broadly. Allowing the world's worst nuclear and missile-technology proliferator, North Korea, and the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, to become de facto nuclear weapons states presents the United States with unattractive alternatives. And, for now, the military option seems unsatisfactory and unlikely in both scenarios. What is to be done?
If you were advising the Obama administration, how would you suggest it build a containment and deterrent regime to counter the drive to nuclear-weapons status by both North Korea and Iran? Be as specific as possible in talking about the elements of that strategy in both cases, whether it's extending the U.S. nuclear umbrella to other Persian Gulf states in the case of Iran, for example; developing much tougher economic sanctions on both; pressuring or coaxing nations such as China and Russia to embrace tougher measures (what should the U.S. be willing to give in return?); constructing a much more robust regime for air, land, and sea intercepts of WMD components; accelerating development of missile defenses; investing more in intelligence operations and capabilities aimed at both nations; and other options. How successful do you think such a containment and deterrent policy would be in each case? Weigh that against your views of the likely success and blowback of a military operation.
-- James Kitfield, NationalJournal.com
12 responses: Michael Brenner, Michael Brenner, Daniel Gouré, Loren Thompson, Michael F. Scheuer, Joseph J. Collins, Ron Marks, James Jay Carafano, Robert Baer, Steven Metz, Paul R. Pillar, Richard Hart Sinnreich
Burt Solomon, a National Journal contributing editor and author of three books about American history, wrote a feature story for our June 13 issue about which American wars have been worth fighting -- from the War for Independence and the War of 1812 to Iraq and Afghanistan. He interviewed historians about their verdicts and what they thought the intended and unintended consequences of each of America's 12 major conflicts have been. You can read the story here.
Solomon's conclusion was that "historians, probably wisely, are wary of balancing the costs and benefits of America's past wars and delivering a bottom-line judgment. But if pressed, they'll divide them into a few 'good' wars, especially the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II; several muddled wars; and a real stinker, Vietnam, the only one that America has lost outright."
So now it's your turn. Which American wars do you think were worth fighting, and why? What were some of the important intended and unintended consequences of those conflicts? And what do you think the judgments are going to be on Iraq and Afghanistan?
-- Patrick B. Pexton, NationalJournal.com
15 responses: Richard Hart Sinnreich, Michael Brenner, Michael Vlahos, Michael Brenner, Loren Thompson, Patrick B. Pexton, Larry Korb, Loren Thompson, Dov S. Zakheim, Ron Marks, James Jay Carafano, Joseph J. Collins, Steven Metz, Dick Kohn, Wayne White
Last month, President Obama unveiled his long-awaited "Cyberspace Policy Review." The 60-plus-page document is the first step toward a strategic, national plan to protect and defend the Internet, which is now the backbone of global commerce, communications and our basic way of life. Obama made clear he knows how vulnerable our networked world has become. He said that his own campaign computers had been hacked, that the rate of online crime is increasing, and that cyber intruders had penetrated the computer systems that control electrical power plants in the United States. Obama said it was time to start treating cyberspace for what it is, "a strategic national asset."
The question is, how does the government protect a borderless, largely anonymous space that is almost entirely owned and operated by private citizens and corporations? Many had hoped that the president's new policy review would offer some answers, but it was thin on new ideas. Obama plans to appoint a new "cyber czar" to coordinate from the White House. But that official will have to contend with two enormous bureaucracies that play dominant roles in protecting cyberspace -- the departments of Homeland Security and Defense. How can one White House official, who will not report directly to the president, herd those giant cats? Has Obama got it right when he says that cyberspace is a "strategic national asset"? If so, why not commit more forcefully to its protection? Or is cyberspace too big, and perhaps too abstract, to "defend" the way the government does our land, sea and air borders?
-- Shane Harris, NationalJournal.com
9 responses: Daniel Gouré, Shane Harris, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., Loren Thompson, James Jay Carafano, Michael P. Jackson, Ron Marks, Shane Harris, James Lewis
On Thursday in Cairo, President Obama will give his long-awaited address to the Muslim world. How important is this speech to mending frayed relations with Muslim populations, and what specific steps should the U.S. take or announce to restore its credibility in the Middle East? Will the fact that the speech will be made from Egypt, a close U.S. ally and de facto dictatorship, dilute its impact and America's pro-democracy message? How important are administration efforts to restart a peace process between Israelis and Palestinians to relations with the Muslim world? Does the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq now under way represent a chance to "reset" Western-Muslim relations?
-- Patrick B. Pexton, NationalJournal.com
19 responses: Michael F. Scheuer, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Daniel Serwer, Michael Brenner, Patrick B. Pexton, Dov S. Zakheim, Patrick B. Pexton, Michael Vlahos, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael F. Scheuer, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., Chris Seiple, Ron Marks, Wayne White, Michael Brenner, Daniel Gouré, Joseph J. Collins, Paul R. Pillar, Robert Baer
President Obama wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp by next January. He has reversed himself on military commissions, now embracing them as a way to put some detainees on trial, but under new rules. He has said some detainees will be moved to U.S. prisons, and some will be released to other countries. Some, such as the Muslim Uighurs from Western China, may end up in the United States.
Congress, however, has voted to strip money for closing Guantanamo from the supplemental war budget until Obama comes up with a detailed plan for the 240 detainees remaining in Cuba. And Republicans, as well as some Democrats, have said they will not allow detainees to be brought onto U.S. soil.
What is the right path here? Is Guantanamo the moral stain on our values and Constitution, as some on the left would say? Would closing Guantanamo make us safer and remove it as one of the incitements of terrorists around the world, as Obama and others have said? Or should it remain open as an effective holding place for people dedicated to killing Americans but too difficult to put on trial because of national security and secrecy concerns, as former Vice President Dick Cheney says? What should we do about Guantanamo and the detainees held there?
-- James Kitfield, NationalJournal.com
8 responses: Michael F. Scheuer, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael Brenner, Ron Marks, Dick Kohn, Brian Michael Jenkins, Joseph J. Collins, Vincent Cannistraro
It is not only Bush administration officials in the hot seat on the question of torture. Top members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, were briefed on the administration's policies and plans with respect to interrogations of terrorist suspects. Now Pelosi has accused the CIA and the Bush administration of "misleading the Congress," and says that during a briefing she received in September 2002, when she was the House minority leader, the CIA informed her that waterboarding was not being used. In fact, it was.
All of this begs the larger question of what responsibility Congress, as "the people's body," has for supervising the executive branch. As the White House, Justice Department, Pentagon, State Department and CIA establish and implement policies for extracting information from terrorist suspects, what useful roles can members of Congress play in oversight? After all, they are the recipients of top-secret briefings on the matters. Is Congress, given its awareness of the Bush administration's interrogation program, now too compromised to conduct a fair and thorough investigation of the roles played by Bush policymakers?
-- Shane Harris, NationalJournal.com
17 responses: Michael Vlahos, Shane Harris, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, Michael Brenner, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., Amy Zegart, Kori Schake, Wayne White, Col. W. Patrick Lang, James Jay Carafano, Joseph J. Collins, Ron Marks, Bing West, Paul R. Pillar, Milt Bearden, Winslow T. Wheeler, Daniel Byman
North Korea is hinting that it might test a second underground nuclear device and test fire another long-range missile if the U.N. doesn't apologize and make amends for its most recent round of sanctions and disapproval of the last North Korean missile test on April 5.
The U.S. special envoy for North Korea, Stephen Bosworth, is making a swing through Asia this week to get input from China, Japan, South Korea and Russia on the future of the six party talks. Overall, however, the Obama administration seems to be playing it cool toward the North, trying to re-engage, but also trying not to be coerced into a kowtow just to get Pyongyang to start talking again. What is the approach President Obama should be taking right now toward the North? Should he pull out all the stops to get the six party talks up and running again, or let North Korea continue its testing and not be swayed by it? Or is there another way to approach the North that might work better?
-- Patrick B. Pexton, NationalJournal.com
9 responses: Dov S. Zakheim, Patrick B. Pexton, Michael Vlahos, Joel Wit, James Jay Carafano, Ron Marks, Bonnie Glaser, Joel Wit, Jack Pritchard
Everyone likes to play oddsmaker, and here is your chance. The collapse of Lehman Brothers, the event generally seen as the immediate trigger of the global economic crisis, occurred seven months ago, in September 2008 -- enough time to start drawing some conclusions on how the crisis is reshuffling the global power deck.
We're asking you to think imaginatively and in an unbounded fashion about winners and losers from the crisis. A winner might be a nation-state like India, whose economy has been relatively unscathed. A winner also might be prospects for a Chinese imperium, as China uses its immense financial reserves to extend its influence around the world. A winner might be "the South" -- which stands to increase its clout in institutions like the International Monetary Fund. A loser might be the American model of unfettered capitalism, widely blamed for the debacle. A loser might be globalization, as nation-states retreat behind their borders and thwart efforts by Gordon Brown and others to arrive at a global solution. A petro-punctured Russia also may be a loser, as may be a burst-bubble Dubai.
But these are just starting suggestions. The premise for this exercise is that the crisis is a huge event that will make for lasting effects. How will the world change as a result of the crisis? Predictions, anyone?
-- Paul Starobin, NationalJournal.com
13 responses: Dov S. Zakheim, James R. Locher III, Paul Starobin, Hillary Mann Leverett, Daniel Serwer, Joseph J. Collins, Wayne White, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner, Kellie A. Meiman, Michael Vlahos, Andrew Bacevich
Taliban militants, having already consolidated their hold on Pakistan's western tribal belt and the Swat Valley, have now expanded, in the face of little resistance, to stake claims in regions 60 miles from the capital, Islamabad. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the government of Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari "is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists" and that the situation there "poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of our country and the world." Zardari, in his scheduled May visit to Washington, is expected to seek U.S. assistance in implementing an effective counter-insurgency strategy.
Can Zardari's government implement an effective counter-insurgency strategy? If so, what elements should it include, and what assistance should the United States provide? If, on the other hand, it is too late for the government's counter-insurgency work -- if you think Zardari has already been compromised by the extremists -- what options does the United States have? Are the disparate militant groups that are loosely united under the Taliban umbrella really capable of formulating and executing a coherent and ambitious strategy to seize power? If Pakistan's civilian government is collapsing into a failed state, what contingency plans should the U.S. develop with regard to Pakistan's military; its nuclear weapons; its extremists; and the humanitarian nightmare that unfolds in a failed state?
-- James Kitfield, NationalJournal.com
9 responses: Daniel Serwer, James Kitfield, Joseph J. Collins, Michael Vlahos, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Ron Marks, Michael F. Scheuer, Bruce Hoffman, Paul R. Pillar
